Palmetto Feud: Council Ends It

Click PALMETTO PLANNING ISSUES to read opinion pieces on the Palmetto planning dispute, which City Council ended on July 27 in favor of the Houmams. Scroll down to read the record number of comments posted on this hot topic. CLICK HERE FOR RELATED POST AND COMMENTS

Comments

[Jeffrey Simons]

Ditto to what Jim Alex said, and I made sure to hang around outside Council Chambers last night to let them know they made a fair and judicious decision. Let's hope threats to appeal to the Coastal Commission are empty.

As a relentless critic of city leadership, I did find City Council very much in tune with the process and understanding the myriad of issues at play here. Makes me laugh that they did this a week before I moved to Texas!

[mike bell]

You still haven't answered the question. Does Flavia live full time at 2270 Palmetto or does she rent or loan this residence out to others?

[jim alex]

Well, this was the process and this was the final vote. 4-0 by the City Council. I have to give credit to the City Council for doing the right thing.

I will be first in line to call out the Council when they make a mistake and first in line to give them credit when I think they do the right thing.

I think they did the right thing Monday night.

[Lisa Vallerie]

Unfortunately, more hearsay was posted this afternoon that was not true at all. Flavia does not have an illegal entry gate to Birch Lane. She has access legally. The planning commission came out and told her she could build a gate up to 6 ft. Please consult with the planning commission for the true facts. Also, no one from the Fire Department ever talked to Flavia about any safety issues. Please consult with the Fire Department for the facts. Flavia goes out of her way to make sure she follows all legal guidelines, especially those that pertain to her property and investment.

Please disregard the negative comments because they are not true or factual at all.

As for the sympathy note, Flavia also lost a very close and dear family member this week. Sincere sympathy goes to both families.

[Wanda Kirvin]

Nobody said the bulk of the signatures on the petition supported Flavia. I said they were not all from the neighborhood and not even all Pacificans, Ms. Vallerie, and I'll bet you haven't even seen the completed petition. Flavia didn't hand it over to the Council herself, but she did sit in front of her house and walked it around with her buddy Robine Runneals.

[Kelly Holt]

The Appellant's back gate to Birch Lane is Illegal and the Appellant knows this. The city has already told her. It is a SAFETY ISSUE. The Fire Marshal told her it is not safe. The Appellant’s back gate would open to where the residents of Birch Lane are trying to back their cars out of their driveways on the narrow Birch Lane. It is not safe for people to come out of that gate where they may not be seen, by the residents of Birch Lane, backing their cars up, to turn around. The Appellant’s house does not belong to the Birch Lane subdivision. The Appellant’s house at 2260 Palmetto is part of the Palmetto subdivision. She can go right down to Montecito, half a block away, and go to the beach from there. By the way, someone has been smashing in the fence around the 2270 Palmetto proposed project lot, and someone has been smashing the Houmams' flowerpots in their front yard when they are not home. Mr. Jama Houmam just lost his mother two weeks ago. Mrs. Monica Houmam just lost her sister this weekend. This family is suffering, also. Please, will everyone be peaceful, kind, and civil tonight at the meeting, in respect for all sides, including the City Council. Thank you.

[mike bell]

Can you verify that Flavia lives full time at 2270 Palmetto or does she rent or loan it out to others?

[Lisa Vallerie]

Thankfully, Flavia has several wonderful informed neighbors and supporters in the Palmetto neighborhood and in Pacifica in general. Her supporters have based their decisions on the truth and the facts.

It is NOT TRUE that the bulk of the signatures collected for Flavia's petition came from people outside of Pacifica. That is just more nonsense and hearsay, which is not legal in court. Most of the signatures that she gathered came directly from the Palmetto neighborhood in Pacifica. Please obtain a copy and see for yourself and don't listen to hearsay by people who have never talked to Flavia or who haven't listened to Flavia speak at the public hearings.

Flavia has never said that she initialed any paperwork or that any paperwork was blurry. This is also more hearsay posted today.

As stated time and time again over the past several months, Flavia IS NOT AGAINST the Mixed-Use project at 2270 Palmetto Ave. She is simply, legally, and rightfully asking for a compromise so that she has light, air, and privacy to her home.

Flavia has very simple and reasonable requests if the 2270 building cannot be rotated to allow for light, air, and privacy to her home.

(1) Give her home 2 more feet of space between the proposed building so that she has light and air in her home.
(2) Make the windows on the north wall opaque glass for privacy.
(3) Take out the big trees that are proposed to be planted at 2270 Palmetto so that it will not block sunlight to her rear garden.
(4) She would like the Houmams to stop blocking her only gate to the beach down Birch Lane with their belongings and their trash.

Flavia has the right to defend her light, air, and privacy. If other people have not tried to defend the quality of their home, investment, and surroundings, that is their issue.

[Kelly Holt]

PLEASE COME HELP DENY Palmetto APPEAL at CITY COUNCIL, JULY 27!
The Applicants (Houmams) have already compromised twice. Their project has been approved by the Planning Commission twice. They have made all the changes that the City Council and the Planning Commission thought was fair. They have compromised and given the 3 feet. They have compromised and angled the roof to give the Appellant more air, light, and privacy. It costs a lot of money to change the plans, over and over again. The Applicants (Houmams) notified the neighbors, and invited them to discuss their input, in the beginning of this process. They had meetings at the Pacifica Library to show their plans. They knew that the neighbor’s input was essential. There were no opposition requests at the time. Meetings were requested by the Applicants (Houmams) to the Appellant’s representative to come over and talk about these issues and the Appellant’s representative refused. The Applicants (Houmams) have tried to compromise from the beginning and no one wanted to talk. Now, at the last minute, the Appellant wants to compromise. All of the changes that were asked for in the first appeal were made. Now, she wants more. The Appellant will not have a problem with her air, light, privacy and suffocation. I have a similar 3-story building next to my house, in Pacifica, that is 5 feet away. I have no problem with air, light and privacy. The existing house, to the north of the Appellant’s house, at 2256 Palmetto, is only 5 feet away. Their windows are directly opposite of the Appellant’s house. The Applicants (Houmams) will make their windows offset, unopposing, and opaque. I have a Photo of a 6-foot shadow, at 4:00 pm, July 13, 2009, cast from the 3-story building at 2318-2350 Palmetto, onto the neighbor lot to the north, on the same side of the block as the Proposed project. If there is a 5 ½ -foot space between the Proposed project at 2270 Palmetto and the Appellant/neighbor to the north, this shows that the shadow would hardly touch her house. The wind blows right through the neighborhood of this house, from the beach, for air. I used to use the path through the Applicants' (Houmams') lot, to the beach. It’s only half a block to the corner and you can walk right to the beach from Montecito. Please come to support this project and deny this appeal. Enough is enough. Thank you!

[Wanda Kirvin]

Most people in Pacifica do not have what Ms. Maucci is asking for. Why should she have privacy in her backyard? I have eight large windows and eight small ones looking into my backyard in the back and four on the side. I am a block from the beach and do not have mold. Rust. Yes. Mold. NO.
Ms. Maucci has handed in a petition that was supposedly signed by Pacifica Neighbors supporting her. There are Hayward, San Francisco, and Daly City signatures and at least two nonexistent addresses and two teenagers and some duplicate signatures.
She claims the document she initialed was blurry when she was buying the property and that it was slipped in at the last minute. This is only one of the claims she has made and can easily be disproved. People are coming out of the woodwork to support her and reading their comments makes me believe they really don't know all the true facts of the case.

[Jeffrey Simons]

Sorry, guys, but this process has been unfairly punitive to the Houmans. They worked with the planning department for over 2 years, they were approved by the planning commission in January, appealed by City Council and sent back to planning, they made the modifications as asked, and the project was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission again by a 7-0 vote. Support the "revitalization" of Palmetto and support the Houmans.

[Robine Runneals]

Please come support Flavia and a transition plan for Palmetto’s future this Monday night, July 27th, at 7pm. Location: City Council Chambers 2212 Beach Blvd. Item #4 on the agenda

[Bob Hutchinson]

It seems like the compromise Flavia is suggesting is extremely fair. Hopefully we can put this behind us and start the process of making sure this doesn't happen again. I and most of our neighbors support you and will see you at the meeting.

[Lori Fisher]

It is true that Julie received a phone call from ME from my cell phone while I happened to be at the Houmans' home following the council meeting on July 13, 2009, but it wasn't meant as a harassing call. I happened to see her name on a public copy of the appellant's petition. She is my girlfriend and I thought I could get her view point, but when she found out I was at Monica's house, she felt like she was being harassed and hung up.

Julie misunderstood my personal intentions and went public before I could call her back when I was at my house at a more decent hour that week since I work nights and I wasn't going to call her during the day when she was at her job.

I respect her right to her opinion regarding this matter. In the meantime, we have spoken and I want to clear up these accusations that she is a liar about the phone call and set everyone straight. I made a call to her as a friend, not to harass her, only for her opinion.

[mike bell]

Hey, remember this whopper?
"We have no doubt that Saddam Hussein is hiding weapons of mass destruction and is planning an attack on America."

[Julie Lang]

How dare you people! You don't know me! I have NO reason to lie about a phone call.

I was stating a FACT when I said I got a harassing call from the Houmans home on Monday night. Not that some of the proponents care about FACTS or the TRUTH, as I have noticed in reading these rants. Perhaps you people don't know the Houmans as well as you think you do. If you want the truth, ask Monica yourself, she was there.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!!

[Bob Hutchinson]

mike bell said:
"I know the Houmans. They are nice people who would not do such a thing, let alone be stupid enough to make a harassing phone call from their own home."
----------------------------------
Sorry to tell you, Mike and Steve, but the harassing phone call from the Houmans home absolutely did happen. I was a witness to the entire call. So I don't know what that says about them being "nice people" as you put it. You're right on one thing, though, it was a stupid thing to do.

I have known Julie Lang for 30 years. She has lived in Pacifica for 50+ years and is a loved and highly respected member of the community.

[Jeffrey Simons]

wow, are the "supporters" of the "appellant" reaching the stage where they are introducing phony phone calls? I am skeptical as well, considering the loss the Houman family just suffered this weekend. But in typical Pacifica political fashion, when the merits of your arguments start to falter, get personal and accuse the opposition of being "nasty and intimidating".

[Steve Sinai]

Julie, was this the petition where half the names were from people outside Pacifica, and that had at least one signer who listed a phony address?

I agree with Mike. I don't believe said phone call ever happened.

[jim alex]

Actually I can relate personally to both sides..

I helped a good friend of mine and business associate buy a paper lot street in Alpine Meadows, By Tahoe City in Lake Tahoe..He built one house and sold it..He started to build another house when he was approched by a nice young couple with two young babies to buy the house..Well my friend worked with them and turned the house into the couples dream house..My friend is a General Contractor who is from the old school. Has pride of workmanship and does not stop till the home owner is 100 percent happy with the home..Keep in mind he has probably built and or rehabed over 100 homes in Southern California and Lake Tahoe..

He did countless plan revisions and never charged the couple a dime. He did upgrades and pretty much ate the cost..He wanted them to be happy..Well they moved in and basiclly considered him the son they didn't have yet..When we went out and started doing site work for the next home they asked what was going on..They wanted no more homes built on the street and wanted to stop him..They turned on him, and basiclly tried to sue him in court not to build..It got thrown out of court..

A building was also built next to a piece of property I own that is pretty much an eyesore..The property does not mesh with the neighborhood and could not even be used as the original planned use. I was not in town during the time period where I could have questioned the developement and now have to live with it forever.I missed out during the alloted time period to appeal the project, but didn't.Till this building is torn down..

I am looking at all the facts in this case like how a judge does or should..2 sides..Houmans and Flavia's. No mater what happens one side will be unhappy with the result..

I have weighed all the facts and would have to side with the Houmans..The Planning Commission approved this project twice and so did the City Council..No one mentioned in the approval process that the project should have been scaled back..

Before you Friends of the Council start bashing me..Let me tell you..I have been in the Real Estate, Finance and Property Management and Development business since I was 18..So that means 28 years in the business..I think that 28 years in the business leads me to say..I pretty much know more then people who are not in the business, who claim to know everything..

I am going to ask the Council to do the right thing at the next meeting and approve this project..If it gets appealed to the Coastal Commission by John Curtis the council will pay dearly at election time..I will personally see to it!!!!!

[mike bell]

I know the Houmans. They are nice people who would not do such a thing, let alone be stupid enough to make a harassing phone call from their own home.

[Julie Lang]

I got a harassing phone call shortly after the meeting on Monday July 13th from someone who got my name off the petition I signed against the proposed building. They were calling from the Houmans' house! Pretty sleazy, if you ask me. I think I'm entitled to my opinion and if I were on the fence about this matter, that phone call pretty much sealed the deal for me!

[Lisa Vallerie]

Flavia Maucci was NOT fully informed of the plans by the Houmans. This FACT has been stated repeatedly by Flavia and her supporters and summarized by the city council this year. I think it is sad that people who express their thoughts on this blog have no clue what they are talking about and either don't listen at the public hearings or don't do their research. Need I remind people that hearsay is not legal in court.

In addition, Flavia is asking for a redesign to allow her to have light and air in her home and her backyard. She has NEVER requested that the Mixed Use property at 2270 Palmetto Ave. not be built. She is simply asking for a redesign.

I would like to suggest that people who post on this blog come to the public hearings and listen to Flavia. Better yet, talk to Flavia directly if you want the facts from her side and certainly if you are going to post a blog about her. She is easy to approach and would entertain the opportunity to speak on this matter.

[Cynthia Montanez]

Mr. Hutchinson, based on what has been posted here, it would appear that the appellant was fully informed of the plans of the Houmans and the zoning of the property when she purchased the house in 2005.

I'm sorry, but common sense needs to prevail here. The appeal should be denied, in my opinion.

[mike bell]

The point that the Council "said" that they wanted this stretch of Palmetto to be developed into a thriving business district and the fact that they spent over two years of public commission time and over $50,000 to yet another outside consultant to prop up their campaign agenda has been completely lost in this discussion.

Once again. no follow through, no leadership, special consideration to special interests, project killed or maimed. High five!